KFnet in T-Town

Feb. 29, 2012 at 7:10am

Here Comes the Booze

Not sure if anyone else has noticed these signs of Washington State's new liquor laws popping up around town but the Hilltop Tacoma folks spotted this at the Safeway in their neighborhood:


Photo courtesy Hilltop Tacoma

Does this mark the beginning of a dangerous trend for public safety or is it a welcome change for convenience sake?

comments [28]  |  posted under grocery, liquor, public safety, tacoma

Comments

by fredo on 2/29/2012 @ 7:48am
welcome change for convenience sake.

by cisserosmiley on 2/29/2012 @ 7:48am
There seems to be very little " liquor store robberies" of state stores in Wa., but when I have lived in Ca. and Az. it was always happening...a new job opening in T town - liquor store robber. Olympia is looking at banning 70 "cheap" liquors. How about that Tacoma city council???

by Keeper on 2/29/2012 @ 7:51am
Bottom line is that the state should not be in the retail business. There are ways to deal with the issues that arise from that, but at its base it is good.

by cisserosmiley on 2/29/2012 @ 8:06am
Yes, but should Tacoma city council consider adding some hard alcohol products to an alcohol impact area?

by KevinFreitas on 2/29/2012 @ 8:27am
I'm glad for the change overall because I never visit state liquor stores since they make me feel like a dirty criminal who's being watched if I want to buy something.

Another concern I have is what it might do to bars and restaurants in the area. Will this pull people away from their spirits or just encourage them to up their mixing game?

by Erik on 2/29/2012 @ 8:54am
Tacoma needs to consider ways the AIA law or application of it needs to be supplemented or all of the work on the past AIAs will be ruined...and places like Wright Park could return to being one large drunk tank again.

by Keeper on 2/29/2012 @ 9:08am
With the risk of being inflammatory, suggesting that areas will be devastated due to the availability of liquor are fear-mongering at best.

People already have access to cheap alcohol all over. The times I've recently been at Wright Park, it never seemed infested with drunks or homeless. That would not change with the availability of liquor. Most of the homeless are more on the South end of downtown. I'd think they would walk up the hill to the Albertsons on 38th.

by cisserosmiley on 2/29/2012 @ 9:18am
@keeper, your observation on wright park is due to a restriction on some fortified wines and malt liquor that is currently in place. The question becomes if WE do not continue this policy with certain hard alcohol products will the situation we have been policing with AIA restrictions become out of control again.

by KevinFreitas on 2/29/2012 @ 9:19am
Totally agree @Keeper. I'm concerned more for restaurants (though, with the availability of beer, I still go to places to get beer) and possibly for people having easier access to those tiny little bottles. I'm thinking the latter are easier for folks who need help with less cash on hand who need a quick alcohol fix.

by Jesse on 2/29/2012 @ 9:38am
I didn't vote for privatization because:

1. Wine shops would be eaten up by big corporation stores... and I'm selfish. I like small wine shops.
2. Hard alcohol available late at night is bad. I like the liquor stores closing early.
3. Hard alcohol becomes more readily available. You can get beyond drunk fast with hard alcohol therefore throwing off a person's better judgement. IE- Young people getting into cars, etc., I remember in college I used to do seven shots of Tequilla in five minutes and then go out. It's uber hard to down 7 beers in 5 minutes.
4. Hard alcoholic drinks at stores will be cheaper than at a bar late at night causing some to grab a bottle, get drunk, and THEN go to the bars - it'll hurt the bars in town.

Some of these points are semi true now but with the availability of hard alcohol at all hours - that makes picking up a bottle of Jack Daniels as easy as picking up a beer.

by fredo on 2/29/2012 @ 10:09am
The voters heard all the reasons why privatized liquor would be bad. The arguments were already disposed of. The vast majority of the voters didn't believe the privatization opponents or their arguments.

by Jesse on 2/29/2012 @ 10:48am
I think this actually passed because people realized the big businesses behind it were going to keep putting it on the ballot until they pass it.

My reasons for voting against it were never "disposed of" by anyone but big business and people willing to be guided by their advertising.

by fredo on 2/29/2012 @ 11:51am
Hundreds of thousands of voters were "brainwashed" by the advertisements. Jesse, I think you engaged in a bit too much binge drinking in your formitive years.

by fredo on 2/29/2012 @ 12:03pm
"people realized the big businesses behind it were going to keep putting it on the ballot until they pass it."

Big labor has put an income tax initiative on the Washington ballot several times in the last 30 or 40 years and yet...the voters haven't passed it. That would tend to invalidate your theory.

by NineInchNachos on 2/29/2012 @ 12:07pm
who hasn't given a child what it wants just so they'll shut up and leave you alone?

by NineInchNachos on 2/29/2012 @ 12:08pm
income tax failed either because the ads weren't good or they weren't bad enough.

by fredo on 2/29/2012 @ 12:12pm
The citizens gave up their beloved and highly expensive liquor distribution system so that Costco would shut up and leave them alone? If you believe that, then you don't hold the voters in very high regard.

by Maria on 2/29/2012 @ 12:14pm
Erik: "Tacoma needs to consider ways the AIA law or application of it needs to be supplemented or all of the work on the past AIAs will be ruined...and places like Wright Park could return to being one large drunk tank again."

Yes.

The government is vested with the right to create laws and ordinances to protect the health and welfare of citizens. I lean in some area to less regulation and fewer restrictions, but this is one ordinance that has helped the city become safer and healthier.

Tacoma was the first city in the state to enforce a non-voluntary alcohol impact area.

Good analysis of the origins and success of the AIA:

www.facecatalog.org/v/pdfs/EstablishingI...
(PDF link, but worth reading)

www.cityoftacoma.org/File.ashx?cid=17612
(PDF, figures from Lincoln AIA before and after)

by fredo on 2/29/2012 @ 12:19pm
Problem:

People drinking in the parks

Solution:

Penalize the stores which sell alcohol

Problem:

Pets crapping in the parks

Solution:

Penalize the pet stores.

by Jesse on 2/29/2012 @ 12:30pm
Income tax failed because people saw that it would eventually effect them.
Liquor store law was different. It doesnt effect the common person much and they didnt care a huge deal about it. Most realized the corporations are going to keep on asking for privitization until they get it. Tired of listening to Costco's 22 million in advertizing.

by fredo on 2/29/2012 @ 12:39pm
I found the I-1183 opponents 12 million in advertizing to be tiresome. These well funded messages from the liquor distributors sounded preposterous. They made it sound like little kids would soon be buying alcohol. Voters could see the current system was nothing more than a shakedown by the unions and the wholesalers. People like Costco.

by Non Sequitur on 2/29/2012 @ 2:05pm
Welcome to increased crime rates and more social discord all so Fredo can save $0.75 on a bottle of bourbon.

by fredo on 2/29/2012 @ 4:23pm
"Welcome to increased crime rates and more social discord all so Fredo can save $0.75 on a bottle of bourbon."

Yes, there is a reasonable comment. If bourbon goes down 75 cents per bottle it's going to result in increased crime and social discord.

by Non Sequitur on 2/29/2012 @ 8:30pm
This is awesome!
Fredo misinterprets me, I misinterpret him and everyone else joins in on the telephone game.

What I MEANT and should have said was:
"Fredo's desire to save a few cents on bourbon dooms us all to a future where there is less control and greater ease of access to hard liquor. Such lower prices and increased access will result in higher crime rates. Thus, Fredo's miserly ways have cost thousands of liquor store employees their livelihood and cost us all in terms of the safety of our community".
Now batting 48th is WA.

Thanks, Scrooge McFredo!

by low bar on 2/29/2012 @ 10:32pm
now with bud light platinum who needs liquor stores? anywho i always thought tacoma was micro grassy brew beer snoot central? no real need for the hard stuff.

by fredo on 3/1/2012 @ 1:36am
"Fredo's desire to save a few cents on bourbon dooms us all to a future where there is less control and greater ease of access to hard liquor" NS

clearly we aren't "doomed" to any such future. Anybody has the right to start an initiative for the purpose of bringing back the state liquor stores or even for the purpose of outlawing the sale of hard alcohol in the State of Washington.

Also, I-1183 didn't have anything to do with the price of liquor it only ended retail distribution by the state. I-1183 opponents already warned the voters that passage would result in HIGHER liquor prices, not LOWER, why won't you believe them?

by KevinFreitas on 3/22/2012 @ 12:28pm
A nice update from the Ruston Home blog re: a local business and the impacts (seemingly mostly positive) of the new liquor law on them: rustonhome.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruston-l...

by cisserosmiley on 3/23/2012 @ 5:15am
In England there are "...calls for placing a minimum price per unit of alcohol and banning multi-buy discount deals. The idea is to prevent the sale of very cheap alcohol."
Maybe Tacoma can make malt liquor and fortified wine mad expensive?

About

Although I have another home on the web I thought it might be nice to lead by example a bit and put this blog system up to the test myself.

So far, so good... Funny how I build web tools for other people that are far better than the one's I have setup over on KFnet.

------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Clear Channel, Clean Up Your Crap!

Advantage: Tacoma

Quick Bites

Recent Posts